The Core Problem with Parrot Version Numbers

[Mark Glines]

chromatic wrote:
> 	March 2009: 	Budgie 1
> 				Budgie 2
> 				Budgie 3
> 				Budgie 4
> 	July 2009		Cockatoo 1
> 				Cockatoo 2
> 				Cockatoo 3
> 				Cockatoo 4
> 				Cockatoo 5
> 				Cockatoo 6
> 	January 2010	Dusky 1
> 
> 	....
> 
> This scheme takes advantage of the biannual nature of our cycles, better 
> indicates the types of changes that the users Todd Olson mentions can expect, 
> and has the advantage of not throwing a stream of numbers such as 20090417 at 
> people.


+1.  Though I don't have a problem with 20090417 either.  Both of those
make more sense to me than X.Y.Z does.

Mark